Quote (elitepie @ Aug 21 2010 07:30pm)

where to begin with this mess of a response. lets see here
Firstly. the electrons scientists claim to exist in orbitals and that chemists use DAILY, are not actual physical particals, all atoms in the universe are connected by a DNA like "rope" if you will, which is in a straight line between each atom that causes a tension known as gravity,  and an electron is the event of the rope twisting as atoms expand and contract, of the 2 strands of the rope one is electric, and one is magnetic which explains the perpendicular wave patterns and also the illusion of a zero dimension particle that can have spin and be in more than one place at once, pretty much explaining why they don't seem to follow any other physical principles as predicted by quantom

To make this clear. particles that are created after collisions cannot assumed to be in the same form after the collision, as when they existed inside the atom, in fact the very opposite, therefore it is currently impossible to infer what makes up the inner mechanics of an atom

Quote (elitepie @ Aug 22 2010 01:21am)

ok, then by that logic, you cannot explain what the universe expanded into, and is still expanding into. you have to conceed the idea that there is Space ( that which has no shape) or else the universe could not even exist in the first place
You cannot have a black dot without a white background

Time can only be a dimension mathematically, thats for sure, you can draw a number line and label it Time and place it perpendicular to a number line labeled Height, and then graph something
but in the real world time cannot be a dimension by the strict definition of what a dimension is, and just becuase u can abstract something in math doesn't mean it can be used in physics
the bottom line is that time cannot be placed Perpendicular to the other 3 dimensions and therefore fails to be a dimension according to the physics definition

Quote (Hammer_Hdin @ Aug 21 2010 07:38pm)

Calm down, nerd.

Firstly, learn to spell 'experimental'. If you spelt it wrong once I would understand because people make typos, but you have spelt it wrong several times (infact, everytime).
Secondly, electrons follow a very specific property. Have you heard of electron shells? Well perhaps you can read up more about them because it is more than just a theory to assume that electrons exist. They do so much more than a simple gamma particle or beta particle.
And lastly, if you really want to know why two different particles with different properties share the same name, then please tell me which particles they are. I remember the whole periodic table in my head and I can tell you properties of every single element, so you can either ask me or learn chemistry to figure out the answer to your problem.

Quote (thenoose @ Aug 21 2010 08:32pm)

I don't see how the "rope theory" is better than the current model. I'm much more interested in the current theory which is backed by decades of research than the ravings of some guy who doesn't understand modern physics. There's bound to be major flaws in current theories in physics but that doesn't mean it's totally wrong either. I'd be more inclined to believe mr.stupidrelativist if one of his "theories" wasn't the mass extinction of humans within the next few decades. His over the top and at times absurd style doesn't do much for credibility either.

Modern accelerators take highly energetic particles, smash them together and entirely new particles are formed because of the high amount of energy involved. They measure to mass, momentum, charges of the stuff that comes out and discover/confirm new particles. I don't understand exactly how it all works but they're not just playing with multi-billion dollar toys for shits n giggles.

Quote (Gurby @ Aug 22 2010 12:09am)

that rope theory is hilariously wrong. and space can very much have a shape, since it does have orthogonality. as does time, the fact that we can't choose to move in which direction we want doesn't change that. you know there's a mathematical funding for four-dimensional space, let's see some for your rope theory.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 22 2010 10:32am)

Of course there is space, but your definition of it is flat out wrong.

Time can be a dimension mathematically because it can be orthogonal to the other three dimensions. To say otherwise is just lying. Hell, we can even add multiple more dimensions a la string theory.

Where are you getting all these ideas of dissent from? youstupidrelativist.com? I looked on that website and it was talking about how gravity is not a force, it's a tension. If it were not a force and it were a tension then that means that nothing would fall to the ground, it would simply sit there with tension. Gravity is a constant force which is why you have 'weight' when the object is blocked from falling.

Quote (elitepie @ Aug 22 2010 05:59pm)

my source is feandft.com
and i really have nothing to add to what any of you said, becuase ur arguments is that im stupid, so theres no way i can reply to any of u guys
I know im right, just tryin to open some eyes but i guess that will never happen untill a new generation grows up with an open mind

Quote (thenoose @ 23 Aug 2010 03:18)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to call you stupid. I just think you should take a bit of your own advice and think for yourself.

Quote (elitepie @ Aug 21 2010 02:07pm)

im just trying to get people to open their eyes and stop eating the spoon fed bullshit from shows like THE UNIVERSE or Morgan freeman's (wtf? morgan freeman? rofl) through the wromhole or INTO THE UNIVERSE WITH STEVEN (THE JOKE OF A SCIENTIST THAT NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING) HAWKING


THOSE SHOWS PRESENT ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT AS FACT LOL